Bishop v. Federal Government, No. 2:2019cv00600 - Document 6 (D.N.M. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack DENYING 5 MOTION to Proceed under 28 U.S.C. 1915. (yc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bishop v. Federal Government Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO LEMYRON BISHOP, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:19-cv-00600-RB-CG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Affidavit of indecency [sic]/ motion of request of services tools, personnel, and all fundage/change of case type (Doc. 5), filed August 2, 2019 ("Affidavit of Indigency"). The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis because it notifies the Court "of necessary funds needed in further process of court settings." The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot because the Court has dismissed this case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (See Doc. 3.) The Court also notifies Plaintiff of the following. First, allowing a party to proceed in forma pauperis means only that the case can proceed without the party prepaying the filing fee and other costs. The Court will not provide funds or personnel to assist a party with the prosecution of his case. Second, Plaintiff emailed his motion to proceed in forma pauperis to the District of New Mexico's CM/ECF Helpdesk. To properly file a document in a case, Plaintiff must either hand deliver or mail the document to the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court, or electronically file the document, if Plaintiff is approved to do so by the presiding judge of the case. Dockets.Justia.com See Guide for Pro Se Litigants at 13, April 2018. Emailing a document to the Court may result in the document not being filed in Plaintiff's case. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Affidavit of indecency [sic]/ motion of request of services tools, personnel, and all fundage/change of case type (Doc. 5) is DENIED. ________________________________ ROBERT C. BRACK SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
